Search

In this study, we intensively measured the longitudinal productivity and survival of 362 commercially managed honey bee colonies in Canada, over a two-year period. A full factorial experimental design was used, whereby two treatments were repeated across apiaries situated in three distinct geographic regions: Northern Alberta, Southern Alberta and Prince Edward Island, each having unique bee management strategies. In the protein supplemented treatment, colonies were continuously provided a commercial protein supplement containing 25% w/w pollen, in addition to any feed normally provided by beekeepers in that region. In the fumagillin treatment, colonies were treated with the label dose of Fumagilin-B® each year during the fall. Neither treatment provided consistent benefits across all sites and dates. Fumagillin was associated with a large increase in honey production only at the Northern Alberta site, while protein supplementation produced an early season increase in brood production only at the Southern Alberta site. The protein supplement provided no long-lasting benefit at any site and was also associated with an increased risk of death and decreased colony size later in the study. Differences in colony survival and productivity among regions, and among colonies within beekeeping operations, were far larger than the effects of either treatment, suggesting that returns from extra feed supplements and fumagillin were highly contextually dependent. We conclude that use of fumagillin is safe and sometimes beneficial, but that beekeepers should only consider excess protein supplementation when natural forage is limiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many pathogens and parasites have evolved to overwhelm and suppress their host's immune system. Nevertheless, the interactive effects of these agents on colony productivity and wintering success have been relatively unexplored, particularly in large-scale phenomic studies. As a defense mechanism, honey bees have evolved remarkable social behaviors to defend against pathogen and parasite challenges, which reduce the impact of disease and improve colony health. To investigate the complex role of pathogens, parasites and social immunity behaviors in relation to colony productivity and outcomes, we extensively studied colonies at several locations across Canada for two years. In 2016 and 2017, colonies founded with 1-year-old queens of diverse genetic origin were evaluated, which represented a generalized subset of the Canadian bee population. During each experimental year (May through April), we collected phenotypic data and sampled colonies for pathogen analysis in a standardized manner. Measures included: colony size and productivity (colony weight, cluster size, honey production, and sealed brood population), social immunity traits (hygienic behavior, instantaneous mite population growth rate, and grooming behavior), as well as quantification of gut parasites (Nosema spp., and Lotmaria passim), viruses (DWV-A, DWV-B, BQCV and SBV) and external parasites (Varroa destructor). Our goal was to examine: 1) correlations between pathogens and colony phenotypes; 2) the dynamics of pathogens and parasites on colony phenotypes and productivity traits; and 3) the effects of social immunity behaviors on colony pathogen load. Our results show that colonies expressing high levels of some social immunity behaviors were associated with low levels of pathogens/parasites, including viruses, Nosema spp., and V. destructor. In addition, we determined that elevated viral and Nosema spp. levels were associated with low levels of colony productivity, and that five out of six pathogenic factors measured were negatively associated with colony size and weight in both fall and spring periods. Finally, this study also provides information about the incidence and abundance of pathogens, colony phenotypes, and further disentangles their inter-correlation, so as to better understand drivers of honey bee colony health and productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on the Canadian beekeeping sector, we conducted a survey of over 200 beekeepers in the fall of 2020. Our survey results show Canadian beekeepers faced two major challenges: 1) disrupted importation of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) (queen and bulk bees) that maintain populations; and 2) disrupted arrival of temporary foreign workers (TFWs). Disruptions in the arrival of bees and labor resulted in fewer colonies and less colony management, culminating in higher costs and lower productivity. Using the survey data, we develop a profitability analysis to estimate the impact of these disruptions on colony profit. Our results suggest that a disruption in either foreign worker or bee arrival allows beekeepers to compensate and while colony profits are lower, they remain positive. When both honey bee and foreign workers arrivals are disrupted for a beekeeper, even when the beekeeper experiences less significant colony health and cost impacts, a colony with a single pollination contract is no longer profitable, and a colony with two pollination contracts has significantly reduced profitability. As COVID-19 disruptions from 2020 and into 2021 become more significant to long-term colony health and more costly to a beekeeping operation, economic losses could threaten the industry's viability as well as the sustainability of pollination-dependent crop sectors across the country. The economic and agricultural impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed a vulnerability within Canada's beekeeping industry stemming from its dependency on imported labor and bees. Travel disruptions and border closures pose an ongoing threat to Canadian agriculture and apiculture in 2021 and highlight the need for Canada's beekeeping industry to strengthen domestic supply chains to minimize future risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Honey bees play a major role in crop pollination but have experienced declining health throughout most of the globe. Despite decades of research on key honey bee stressors (e.g., parasitic Varroa destructor mites and viruses), researchers cannot fully explain or predict colony mortality, potentially because it is caused by exposure to multiple interacting stressors in the field. Understanding which honey bee stressors co-occur and have the potential to interact is therefore of profound importance. Here, we used the emerging field of systems theory to characterize the stressor networks found in honey bee colonies after they were placed in fields containing economically valuable crops across Canada. Honey bee stressor networks were often highly complex, with hundreds of potential interactions between stressors. Their placement in crops for the pollination season generally exposed colonies to more complex stressor networks, with an average of 23 stressors and 307 interactions. We discovered that the most influential stressors in a network—those that substantively impacted network architecture—are not currently addressed by beekeepers. Finally, the stressor networks showed substantial divergence among crop systems from different regions, which is consistent with the knowledge that some crops (e.g., highbush blueberry) are traditionally riskier to honey bees than others. Our approach sheds light on the stressor networks that honey bees encounter in the field and underscores the importance of considering interactions among stressors. Clearly, addressing and managing these issues will require solutions that are tailored to specific crops and regions and their associated stressor networks. [Display omitted] • Honey bee colonies are exposed to multiple stressors all at once • Exposure to crops during pollination increases the complexity of stressor networks • Influential stressors that regulate network complexity are unmanaged by beekeepers • Stressor networks differ among crops and regions The causes of honey bee colony losses are difficult to identify and manage. French et al. find that honey bees are exposed to complex stressor networks that are crop- and region-specific. Management strategies must consider multiple stressors, as many influential stressors in these networks are currently unmanaged by beekeepers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]